apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 237
Here it is clear from quandam that some comparatively unknown
person bearing the name is
Mary intended. But the omission of the
word in some texts has given occasion to the beHef that S. Bernard
is
speaking of the Virgin. Of its
genuineness however there can be no
reasonable doubt. The whole context shows that S. Bernard regards
Ignatius as using the epithet ' Christ-bearing ' in the same sense in
which it
might be applied to his own hearers. The allusion therefore
is to Mary of Cassobola.
At the first streak of intellectual dawn this Ignatian spectre
vanished into its kindred darkness. In vain feeble attempts were
made to arrest its departure. The mention in the Chronicle of the
so-called Dexter was alleged, but this was found to be a coarse forgery.
The authority of the great Bernard was pleaded, but this proves to
be a case of mistaken identity. So it was held a sufficient condemnation
of this correspondence in an age when internal characteristics
were not over narrowly scrutinized, that it is never quoted by the
ancients, and accordingly
it was consigned at once and for ever to the
limbo of foohsh and forgotten things'.
After this stupid pretender's claims had been set aside, S. Ignatius
was represented, less unworthily indeed, but still very inadequately,
in Western Europe by the epistles of the Long Recension. The
Latin Mss of this recension are, as we have seen, by no means
uncommon. The Latin text was printed early (a.d. 1498) and reprinted
several times. The publication of the Greek text succeeded
after an interval of nearly sixty years (a.d. 1557). At first
no doubt seems to have been entertained respecting its genuineness.
Ignatius was certainly cited by the ancients, and this was the only
Ignatius known. Moreover the epistles quoted in early times bore
the same names; and the quotations themselves, though they did not
coincide, had a rough resemblance to passages in these extant letters.
There seemed therefore to be no alternative left, but to accept them as
genuine.
Yet the very suspicious character of the epistles caused uneasiness
to the critical spirit.
The divergence of the text from the quotations
in early Christian writers, such as Eusebius and Theodoret, were in some
instances so great that in Ussher's language (p.
it
xvii)
was difficult
for one to imagine 'eundem legere se Ignatium qui veterum aetate
legebatur.'
It appeared clear moreover that Eusebius was only ac-
1
Yet Halloix [Ilhistr. Script. Vitae i. can still say of its genuineness, 'non est
p. 300), writing as late as a.d. 1633, improbabile,'